What makes the Tea Party tick

[Ruptga]

I'll have to pass on this one, as what I think what makes the tea party tick are poor value judgements, more or less.

That doesn't make sense. You're going to pass on an informative article because you're already opinionated?

Oh and moonbeam makes no sense to me either. Frankly that post read like the bastard child of a self-absorbed theologian and a crazy psychologist.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I'll admit when I first heard of the Tea Party I thought they might be on to something. Basically we want more direct control of spending & taxation. Shortly after all I noticed was a bunch of old people, historical characters and lunatics shouting about how the rich job creators pay enough taxes. I'll admit I was passing judgment but none of the people in the crowd appeared to have anywhere near the income they were talking about. Then I decided they're all stupid and don't understand the Tea Party has been bought.

It would be nice if we had a party that wanted to expand government to cover new services and a different party that wanted to contract government wherever it was being inefficient.

Instead we have one party that wants to expand government in order to maintain and grow its power base and a different party that wants to burn the whole damned thing to the ground.

Oh and moonbeam makes no sense to me either. Frankly that post read like the bastard child of a self-absorbed theologian and a crazy psychologist.

Without a particular engagement or disagreement your criticism reads like a self-absorbed attempt to defend not thinking. Perhaps a more functional method of engaging the subject would be reading until you reach something you don't understand and ask?

 

[Ruptga]

Ok, but only because I am stuck in the car and have nothing better to do for a while.

Any new born child has the potential to absorbed any form of human culture that has ever existed and the individuals of every culture that has ever existed in the great majority all have considered their own accidentally arrived at culture to be the best there is. This need to identify with what one is born into rather than the infinite potential one actually possesses happens because of put downs, the inculcation of self hate for for expressing difference. We learn to conform out of fear that we will be hated and denied familial,tribe, and other cultural protection. We acquire ego identification.

So far I'm in agreement, it's a little psycho-babbley but not untrue.

This is why we have to die to this self identification to regain the kingdom of heaven, and why it is so difficult to do. We have to relive and remember all our pain of being put down and rejected. We have to deprogram. Good luck with it.

Wat.

Now we have crossed over from psychology to theology, and are stating unprovable opinions as if they were fact. Not to mention we're now taking the thread completely off topic.

 

[justoh]

Is always entertaining to read your posts, but it mostly sounds like improvisation from the Architect from the Matrix and that you've swallowed a Thesaurus.

Entertaining on your end I suppose and I can follow your points, but usually overdone.

:biggrin:

Deathbird Stories



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathbird_Stories

I re-read moon's comments and it reminded me of the science historian, james burke. He concludes his "day the universe changed" series with something like what moonbeam posted. It's only 4 minutes. Most underrated documentary series ever! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB8_wPei2ZM

I hope moon will look at it, at least, despite the way i like to crap on everything Dixy? rup? lulz.

opening remarks for the series (barely over a minute): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlkEwY3sDDo

 

[Dr. Zaus]

we're now taking the thread completely off topic.

I like this criticism a lot. It does take an extra 'step' to get from whatever Moonie is saying to the topic of the conversation, and this is how I made that leap:
1) The question of the thread is "why does the tea party crazy"
2) The proposed solution is "nostalgia"
3) nostalgia is another way of referencing cultural history
4) cultural history is something we hold onto

This is why we have to die to this self identification to regain the kingdom of heaven, and why it is so difficult to do. We have to relive and remember all our pain of being put down and rejected. We have to deprogram. Good luck with it.

Now we have crossed over from psychology to theology, and are stating unprovable opinions as if they were fact.

I can only offer my own reading:

It isn't theology, though it does make a reference to Christ. This is because the 'kingdom of heaven' is not something 'after you die' but an on-going existential state one can enter into on earth. It is a state where in you are driven by doing good for others and loving your fellow human. But since cultural history tells us why we shouldn't love other people, it's essentially the exact opposite of what runs the Tea party.

This is like the parable of the good Samaritan. The jewish person is left to rot on the side of the road: he is ceremonially unclean so the 'proper' religious people walk on by; but the equivalent (from the perspective of the Jews) The social equivalent of a scummy satanic monster, a Samaritan, comes by and (though he has the same view of the Jew as the Jew of him) ignores all that social history and helps the man.

Actions like that are 'the kingdom of heaven' on earth.

Which is why nostalgia explains the crazy of the tea party.



Justoh: That was awesome! I just posted it on face book: It seems he's sharing Feyerabend's epistemological anarchy where in as long as the system of knowing is rigorous, consistent, and allows shared communication regarding what is observable: then it is a valid means to knowledge.

I would make the addendum that some axiomatic statements upon which such systems of knowing are built map over physical to different degrees, and some offer means by which to update assumptions while others do not, but overall it's an idea that we need if we are going to move past the tribal-centric, ethno-centric, anthropo-centric, ideologies (like the TEA party's) that have failed our world.

 

[Ruptga]

Burke is unnecessarily hard on rationalism. He says that everything changes because we are always redefining things, implying a distinct lack of certainty about what we know. Yet, as our knowledge grows, we have to redefine fewer and fewer things. For example, Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong, he proved Newton incomplete. Newton's physics still got us to the Moon, imperfect as they are. The problem of verisimilitude is articulating what it takes for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another false theory, and it's something he tried to just brush aside.

I think it was just an oversimplification for the sake of brevity, though. He went on to talk about his ideal interconnected and constantly adapting society, something that is impossible at the moment specifically because people as a whole are unwilling to adapt. And, that brings us right back to the topic of the article, how textbook conservatives will consistently resist change because they see it as undesirable. I didn't say anything about it in the OP because I knew any sort of commentary would be a dinner bell to argumentative zealots, and the article pretty much said everything I could but better. Interpret it in terms of your theology if you must, but either way I think we're all talking about the same thing here.

 

[justoh]

Burke is unnecessarily hard on rationalism. He says that everything changes because we are always redefining things, implying a distinct lack of certainty about what we know. Yet, as our knowledge grows, we have to redefine fewer and fewer things. For example, Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong, he proved Newton incomplete. Newton's physics still got us to the Moon, imperfect as they are. The problem of verisimilitude is articulating what it takes for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another false theory, and it's something he tried to just brush aside.

I think it was just an oversimplification for the sake of brevity, though. He went on to talk about his ideal interconnected and constantly adapting society, something that is impossible at the moment specifically because people as a whole are unwilling to adapt. And, that brings us right back to the topic of the article, how textbook conservatives will consistently resist change because they see it as undesirable. I didn't say anything about it in the OP because I knew any sort of commentary would be a dinner bell to argumentative zealots, and the article pretty much said everything I could but better. Interpret it in terms of your theology if you must, but either way I think we're all talking about the same thing here.

I understand what you mean, though what he meant by redefining the truth doesn't contradict your point. He says the same thing. If you'll watch just one episode you should check out "making waves." Or at least the last 15 minutes where he talks about mach, einstein and heisenberg (or the last 6 minutes for just heisenberg, but then you'll miss his novel presentation of mach while travelling at mach 2 ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c70YWl5haU4

Points out that studies of the properties of magnetism, electricity, and light have led scientists to the realization that Newtonian physics is inadequate to explain all that they observe. The public, meanwhile, has continued to concentrate on the technological by-products of science. Burke considers Heisenberg's fearful Uncertainty Principle, which challenges the rational, Newtonian view and suggests that the true nature of the universe may forever elude us.

It's more about transforming how we think about the world. The universe and everything in it doesn't really run like newton's giant clock, as we thought for ~300 years after his discoveries, until more recent ones. Einstein reinvented the universe.

He spends 7.5 hours getting to that conclusion. I would also be extremely critical without all that context. It's over 30 years old too, so his speculation about the microchip heard now seem a little ambitious and silly.

Some more background:

THE DAY THE UNIVERSE CHANGED

Primitive man believed that the heavens were ruled by frightful demons and spirits, and that a giant dragon devoured the moon each night. Medieval man, convinced by the ancient Egyptian astronomers, thought that the moon, sun, and planets revolved around the earth. Today we believe that the universe is governed by fixed and discoverable physical laws. But what about the man of the future? How many of our "scientific" principles will he scoff at and denounce as crude superstitions?

In The Day The Universe Changed James Burke argues that knowledge is a man-made artifact, and that when man's views of reality are changed by knowledge, reality itself changes. Armed with this provocative thesis, he charts a course from the Middle Ages to today, examining those critical periods in history when the ideas and institutions that have transformed man's understanding of the world were born.

The Day The Universe Changed takes as its starting point the rediscovery of the teachings of classical Greece in the eleventh century, which stimulated the passion for scientific learning and divided the medieval world from the modern world. Later chapters consider the rediscovery of perspective geometry in Renaissance Florence and its relation to the notion of individualism; the development of the printing press and the birth of propaganda; the study of cannon trajectories that led to the discovery of the law of gravity; the religious, agricultural, and economic causes of the Industrial Revolution; the pairing of medicine with statistics in Revolutionary France that allowed man to study himself in society; and the origins of evolution and its application in American, Nazi German, and Soviet societies. Finally, and appropriately, Burke considers Heisenberg's fearful Uncertainty Principle, which challenges the rational, Newtonian view and suggests that the true nature of the universe may forever elude us.

Systems of belief are discarded as new knowledge renders them apparently invalid. However, if each "truth" is solid in its time, then is knowledge only what we make it? Is there absolute knowledge to find, or is the universe ultimately what we say it is? James Burke challenges the reader to decide, in this fascinating and original examination of our intellectual heritage

 

[justoh]

Justoh: That was awesome! I just posted it on face book: It seems he's sharing Feyerabend's epistemological anarchy where in as long as the system of knowing is rigorous, consistent, and allows shared communication regarding what is observable: then it is a valid means to knowledge.

I would make the addendum that some axiomatic statements upon which such systems of knowing are built map over physical to different degrees, and some offer means by which to update assumptions while others do not, but overall it's an idea that we need if we are going to move past the tribal-centric, ethno-centric, anthropo-centric, ideologies (like the TEA party's) that have failed our world.

Had never heard of that guy before. Thanks. I'm not sure about you ascribe to him as being his criteria for "valid" knowledge, but his basic ideas do seem hard to argue with, and does correspond to burke's thesis.

Epistemological anarchism is an epistemological theory advanced by Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. It holds that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself

That's what the austrian Mach was going on about before him as well. And in a post newton world, it seems like everyone should share/consider this idea. Doesn't mean we can't still use newtonian physics, because they work, obviously, for most applications, but the philosophical implications of newton's universe (where everything is knowable and orderly) are no longer realistic. It's about how we think about the world and doesn't mean we can't still hold on to the ideas of "truth" and "knowledge," but the the quotation marks should be kept in mind.

 

[justoh]

On the thread topic, I think this explains the tea-party (and most people): lack of self-awareness. Who could argue with this? I'm pretty sure he sources all of his findings. Transcript from "god is in the neurons," with typos.

Part 1: Social Neuroscience
Specific neurons and neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine, trigger a defensive state when we feel that our thoughts have to be protected from the influence of others.
If we are then confronted with differences in opinion, the chemicals that are released in the brain are the same ones that try to ensure our survival in dangerous situations.
In this defensive state, the more primitive part of the brain interferes with rational thinking and the limbic system can knock out most of our working memory, phisically causing “narrow-mindedness”.
We see this in the politics of fear, in the strategy of poker players or simply when someone is stubborn in a discussion.
No matter how valuable an idea is, the brain has trouble processing it when it is in such a state.
On a neural level it reacts as if we`re being threatened, even if this threat comes from harmless opinions or facts that we may otherwise find helpful and could rationally agree with.
But when we express outselves and our viewes are appreciated, these “defense chemicals” desrease in the brain and dopamine neurotransmission activetes the reward neurons, making us feel empowered and increasing our self-esteem. Our beliefs have a profound impact on our body chemistry, this is why placebos can be so effective.
Self-esteem or self-belief is closely linked to the neurotransmitter serotonin. When the lack of it takes on severe proportions, it often leads to depression, self-destructive behaviour or even suicide.
Social validation increases the levels of dopamine and serotonin in the brain and allows us to let go of emotional fixations and become self-aware more easily.

And sort of what we can all do to remedy the problem (being self-aware can greatly enrich our life experience).

Self-observing profoundly changes the way our brain works. It activates the self-regulating neo-cortical regions which give us an incredible amount of control over our feelings. Every time we do this our rationality and emotional resilience are strengthened.
When we`re not being self-awere, most of our thoughts and actions are impulsive and the idea that we are randomly reacting and not making conscious choices is instinctively frustrating.
The brain resolves this by creating explanations for our behaviour and physically rewriting it into our memories through memory reconsolidation, making us believe that we were in control of our actions.
This is also called backward rationalization, and it can leave most of our negative emotions unresolved and ready to be triggered at any time. They become a constant fuel to our confusion as our brain will keep trying to justify why we behaved irrationally.

Sounds like something moonbeam would say. lol. uncanny resemblance. Probably don't give moon enough credit, due to his weird writing style.

"When we grow up our moral and ethical compass is almost entirely forged by our environment, so our actions are often a result of the validation we get from society." And, "What we traditionally call “selfish tendencies” is only a narrow interpretation of what self-serving behavior entails, wherein human characteristics are perceived through the flawed paradigm of identity… instead of through a scientific view on what we are: a momentaly expression of an ever-changing unity with no center.
The psychological consequences of this as an objective belief system allow self-awareness without attachment to the imagined self, causing dramatic increases in mental clarity, ***social conscience,*** self-regulation and what`s often described as “being in the moment”

God is in the neurons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH_k0gUHDHc

It's actually really good, despite being researched and produced by an internet troll and gamer, athene, with no scientific background, like me. Well, probably better stated, he collected and presented research in a compelling way.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Reflexivity is the key to the future.

hat's what the austrian Mach was going on about before him as well.

Technically Fayerabend was following a line of thinking he got from Wittgenstein regarding the untenability of solidified 'methods'. The wiki article just doesn't do 'against method' justice though. Fun enough, it turns out the Descartes is the person from whom they are deriving this anti-static-method perspective! (though it seems Descartes is only remembered for his subject-object split canonized in Kant's architectonics of science; and some incredibly poorly understood existentialism)

 

[MongGrel]

That doesn't make sense. You're going to pass on an informative article because you're already opinionated?

Oh and moonbeam makes no sense to me either. Frankly that post read like the bastard child of a self-absorbed theologian and a crazy psychologist.

I'll have to look sorry, were a few other things throw me off at the time.

Apologize sir.

I'd read something similar I guess I just think I made a bad comment by saying I wasn't going to bother commenting more or less.

My bad again.

 

[Moonbeam]

I like this criticism a lot. It does take an extra 'step' to get from whatever Moonie is saying to the topic of the conversation, and this is how I made that leap:
1) The question of the thread is "why does the tea party crazy"
2) The proposed solution is "nostalgia"
3) nostalgia is another way of referencing cultural history
4) cultural history is something we hold onto




I can only offer my own reading:

It isn't theology, though it does make a reference to Christ. This is because the 'kingdom of heaven' is not something 'after you die' but an on-going existential state one can enter into on earth. It is a state where in you are driven by doing good for others and loving your fellow human. But since cultural history tells us why we shouldn't love other people, it's essentially the exact opposite of what runs the Tea party.

This is like the parable of the good Samaritan. The jewish person is left to rot on the side of the road: he is ceremonially unclean so the 'proper' religious people walk on by; but the equivalent (from the perspective of the Jews) The social equivalent of a scummy satanic monster, a Samaritan, comes by and (though he has the same view of the Jew as the Jew of him) ignores all that social history and helps the man.

Actions like that are 'the kingdom of heaven' on earth.

Which is why nostalgia explains the crazy of the tea party.

My reading of your reading is that it is what I wanted to say, that you read me correctly.

 

[Moonbeam]

I re-read moon's comments and it reminded me of the science historian, james burke. He concludes his "day the universe changed" series with something like what moonbeam posted. It's only 4 minutes. Most underrated documentary series ever! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB8_wPei2ZM

I hope moon will look at it, at least, despite the way i like to crap on everything Dixy? rup? lulz.

opening remarks for the series (barely over a minute): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlkEwY3sDDo

Interesting stuff.

 

[sm625]

the changes in the law allowing unlimited money in politics,

This is actually a very good thing. It places the responsibility for countering the money squarely on the shoulders of the citizens, as it should be. There is no pretense anymore. It is everyone's responsibility to know who is bought off, and to react to that reality instead of living in some fantasyland that pretends there is a cap on the power of money in politics.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is actually a very good thing. It places the responsibility for countering the money squarely on the shoulders of the citizens, as it should be. There is no pretense anymore. It is everyone's responsibility to know who is bought off, and to react to that reality instead of living in some fantasyland that pretends there is a cap on the power of money in politics.

So true. The first thing that happens with unlimited money is that the people vote for the candidate nobody ever heard of because he or she is the people's candidate.

 

[Ruptga]

This is actually a very good thing. It places the responsibility for countering the money squarely on the shoulders of the citizens, as it should be. There is no pretense anymore. It is everyone's responsibility to know who is bought off, and to react to that reality instead of living in some fantasyland that pretends there is a cap on the power of money in politics.

Like hell it is. Most people don't even have a clue where their food comes from, and you think they're going to dig through miles of political doubletalk and nested PACs? On top of that, money is a proxy for power and influence, meaning that those with money are far more able to find loopholes and cover their tracks in the first place.

Bottom line: most people just can't be bothered to dig into the truth, and those that can are at a serious disadvantage unless they are also wealthy.

If you really want to end pretense, how about we ban all private political donations, including from candidates themselves, and have everyone run on public funds? There would still be campaign volunteers (that political celebrities would get more of), and candidates would still be able to buy ad space (without directly referencing their campaign or opponents), but that would be a much more transparent, equitable, and democratic system.

 

[Moonbeam]

Like hell it is. Most people don't even have a clue where their food comes from, and you think they're going to dig through miles of political doubletalk and nested PACs? On top of that, money is a proxy for power and influence, meaning that those with money are far more able to find loopholes and cover their tracks in the first place.

Bottom line: most people just can't be bothered to dig into the truth, and those that can are at a serious disadvantage unless they are also wealthy.

If you really want to end pretense, how about we ban all private political donations, including from candidates themselves, and have everyone run on public funds? There would still be campaign volunteers (that political celebrities would get more of), and candidates would still be able to buy ad space (without directly referencing their campaign or opponents), but that would be a much more transparent, equitable, and democratic system.

I get the feeling that what he thinks should be and what you think will be aren't very much the same thing.

 

[justoh]

This is actually a very good thing. It places the responsibility for countering the money squarely on the shoulders of the citizens, as it should be. There is no pretense anymore. It is everyone's responsibility to know who is bought off, and to react to that reality instead of living in some fantasyland that pretends there is a cap on the power of money in politics.

 

[lotus503]

Like hell it is. Most people don't even have a clue where their food comes from, and you think they're going to dig through miles of political doubletalk and nested PACs? On top of that, money is a proxy for power and influence, meaning that those with money are far more able to find loopholes and cover their tracks in the first place.

Bottom line: most people just can't be bothered to dig into the truth, and those that can are at a serious disadvantage unless they are also wealthy.

If you really want to end pretense, how about we ban all private political donations, including from candidates themselves, and have everyone run on public funds? There would still be campaign volunteers (that political celebrities would get more of), and candidates would still be able to buy ad space (without directly referencing their campaign or opponents), but that would be a much more transparent, equitable, and democratic system.

Frankly Nothing in this country will change for the better until the bolded happens. I had honest discourse with a senator once, it was a total accident after he came to speak to our company.

Even legislators who would like things to be different live in a harsh reality of spending up to %80 of their time trying to garner donations for reelection from lobby.

The system is corrupt so nothing that comes from the system is absent corruption, If your rich and have lobbyist however its the best damn country and system in the world.

 

[Dannar26]

It's so crazy to want to stop throwing money down bottomless pits. It's also lunacy to want people to work for a living instead of voting for one.

 

[justoh]

It's so crazy to want to stop throwing money down bottomless pits. It's also lunacy to want people to work for a living instead of voting for one.

I agree with the first point, but not the second. 5/10

 

[Ruptga]

Don't feed the trolls. Anyone that enters a thread here and leaves without posting anything more than a slogan is trolling.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's so crazy to want to stop throwing money down bottomless pits. It's also lunacy to want people to work for a living instead of voting for one.

This is what bigotry is. First you creat a moral standard that is factually appealing, makes imminent sense morally, and then shoehorn delusions into it as if they are the issues being dealt with. Thus focused on the fact of the moral truth of the overarching issue the bigot has never to see that his issues are completely unrelated. In this way a bigot talks himself onto a corner from which he can never escape. The I examined assumptions here are the delusion that the issue you see are created by folk wou believe that throwing money in pit or voting for their living is the moral belief and motivation of those who see things differently. Your fantasy is that you stand on moral high ground and oppose demons when in fact you are just a mechanically programmed idiot. But nobody will ever. Be able to show you this because all you see is the moral soundness of the notion that money is not to be wasted and happiness is partially derived from self reliance, an obvious truth with which anybody who can think agrees.

 

[Craig234]

This is actually a very good thing. It places the responsibility for countering the money squarely on the shoulders of the citizens, as it should be. There is no pretense anymore. It is everyone's responsibility to know who is bought off, and to react to that reality instead of living in some fantasyland that pretends there is a cap on the power of money in politics.

No, it's not. Assuming you're not trolling, which isn't easy, the power of the people to 'counter the money' has been taken away by the Supreme Court, with such excellent arguments as that the people are not allowed to give public money to a candidate running against someone who spends a lot to make the more equal, on the grounds that that might discourage the wealthy from giving to a candidate because their giving would be matched - and that discouragement to their ability to buy elections violates their free speech.

Saying 'there's no pretense anymore' doesn't make it a good situation. That'd be like repealing the laws against bribery and saying it's good because it removes pretense.

The fact is that unlimited money in elections gives far, far more advantage to the candidate getting that money than any backlash against the money. He can pay for the ads.

Add to that how the Republican mantra used to be 'unlimited money, but with full disclosure' until they got unlimited money and now they opposed disclosure, to make that even harder.

Your argument is that naked corruption is better than moderated corruption. Wrong.

While we're on the topic, one of the best interviews I've seen in a long time was on Chris Hayes' show with Ryan Grim (sp?) of the Huffington Post, who discussed why the veterans issues have been neglected by Congress.

It's simple. Veterans don't donate much.

This helps explain the situation where my favorite Senator, Bernie Sanders, who considers himself a 'democratic socialist', is the chair of the Veterans committee in the Senate. (This is getting to my opinion not the interview on the next point). The well-being of millions of veterans regarding government services including government-run healthcare is a service he'd be happy to do.

In contrast, Ryan pointed out that the committees members WANT to be on are the ones with the big donors, such as the financial/banking committee, which has IIRC 61 seats because so many members want to be on it to get the big banking lobbyist donations. Members on that committee average twice the donations of the rest of Congress.

And what do we expect from the members who want to badly to be on that committee to get the banking lobbyist money, in terms of their representing the public interest against the banks, instead of representing the banks against the public?

No wonder the Congress can't do jack to regulate Wall Street.

 

[Ruptga]

In contrast, Ryan pointed out that the committees members WANT to be on are the ones with the big donors, such as the financial/banking committee, which has IIRC 61 seats because so many members want to be on it to get the big banking lobbyist donations. Members on that committee average twice the donations of the rest of Congress.

Hang on, are you talking about this committee? I wasn't able to find that interview either.